cacahuate

Probably. I know there were more there, but I can't recognize everyone.

From:

I've seen several variants on that stupid sign. It's stupid embarrassing. I feel like I've spent as much time of late, trying to get queers to be racially sensitive, as I have trying to get homophobes to see reason. Christ-stix, it's tiring.

From:

I know, WTF. I just looked on Andrew Sullivan's blog and saw yet another, argh.

Maybe if we white queers stood up for POC in their struggles, they'd be more willing to join us in ours. But no, we just assume they don't have any. Fslfkjsghsdfj, fail.

From:

Privilege does that to people, I guess. Hell, white queers still (either consciously or by neglect) push POC queers right out the door. It's one of the major reasons (long with trans-hate, etc.) that I finally gave up on the mainstream queer culture, and opted to only participate in it politically. Every party, dance, what-have-you that I attended always ended up being a study in frustration, as I tried to gently point out the ways that they were making the environment seem hostile or unwelcoming to POC. When the gay party is less diverse than the local gun club, I think you've got a real problem.

From:

kittikattie.livejournal.com

Not to mention it assumes ther are no queers of color.

*pops out of existance again* FUCK.

From:

Yes, absolutely. (Sorry if I implied that!)

It's awfully frustrating not existing, isn't it?

From:

which sign? I'm scrolling up and getting confused.

From:

never mind - found it.

I think the one you photographed isn't so bad. I think their point in that one is not "you owe us" so much as recognizing GLBTQ rights as part of the civil rights movement as a whole, by comparing various minority groups that have been given lesser privileges in society. The idea being that it's a battle that can be won, and one day we'll look back and think it's awful that we differentiated between people under any classifications.

The sign you're describing though sounds pretty awful. "We helped you so you help us" is a weird sentiment, and counterproductive. I'd like to think that a person's support of Civil Rights in other respects is independent of appraised repayment.

hmm.

From:

"STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS LIKE WE STOOD UP FOR YOURS." was (if I'm not mistaken) on the back of THIS sign. That's terribly presumptive, and as pointed out, there's been virtually no white queer presence in the black civil rights movement. Even if it wasn't, the front shown in the pic is STILL offensive.

I think the one you photographed isn't so bad. I think their point in that one is not "you owe us" so much as recognizing GLBTQ rights as part of the civil rights movement as a whole, by comparing various minority groups that have been given lesser privileges in society. The idea being that it's a battle that can be won, and one day we'll look back and think it's awful that we differentiated between people under any classifications.

But the way that the sign is presented, even without the really obliviously heinous screed ostensibly on the back, suggests that those issues are already taken care of. Checking them off kinda means "Done with this one, done with that one...everything's cool for blacks and women, now let's fix gay rights!" You can try to rationalize it any way you want, and maybe it WAS intended as you say it was, but if two white folks like

cachaute and I are rabidly offended by it, you can bet your sweet sox that lots of POC will be fuming, too. Racial sensitivity means just that: being sensitive to how some things you say or do might be taken in a different way by someone with a different perspective and life experience than your more privileged one.

From:

Yep, same sign.

From:

Ok, maybe the front of the sign could be phrased differently to clearly convey it's talking about basic legal rights, not actual implementation of full rights, but the point is valid. I agree about the back.

But also note, the increased turnout of POC (and of recent immigrants and of people with less $), in this election in particular, may well have something to do with Prop. 8 having won. It ain't pretty, but it's true--of course, what you make of that may depend on how you slice the numbers (POC voted for Prop 8 more than did white folks, but I suspect that recent immigrants and their children account for a big chunk of this, but those numbers I haven't seen; I haven't even seen a breakdown distinguishing between Hispanic and black folks).

That, and for all the $ having been poured in on both sides, the failure of the gay rights side to reach out to communities of color (to the best of my knowledge; there may have been some that I didn't know about). It made me a little sad in comparison with Oregon's fight against the anti-gay Prop 8 (back in 2000) when, I understand, there was substantial successful outreach to the black community (queer and otherwise) in Oregon. Partly due to valiant efforts of an activist who is both queer and of color... I can't remember her name... she's a former Reedie, it so happens, who graduated a few decades ahead of us... anyways.

P.S. The majority of voters in my beloved golden state may have supported Prop. 8, but there is a noticeable amount of racial diversity in West Hollywood (arguably the biggest gay area in California).

From:

Ok, maybe the front of the sign could be phrased differently to clearly convey it's talking about basic legal rights, not actual implementation of full rights, but the point is valid. I agree about the back.

How is the point valid? What's to be gained by this approach? How could this sign be rephrased to make it not inane? The only way I can think of is to change it so that it in no way compares the struggle of queers to the struggles of women and blackfolks.

But also note, the increased turnout of POC (and of recent immigrants and of people with less $), in this election in particular, may well have something to do with Prop. 8 having won.

Bullshit. Prove it. And even if it did (which no reputable source is claiming), what does that have to do with insipid signs like this one? "Oh, the POC ruined this vote for us, so we get to use them on our signs!"

That's absurd.

It ain't pretty, but it's true--of course, what you make of that may depend on how you slice the numbers (POC voted for Prop 8 more than did white folks, but I suspect that recent immigrants and their children account for a big chunk of this, but those numbers I haven't seen; I haven't even seen a breakdown distinguishing between Hispanic and black folks).

The numbers you've seen about blackfolk are practically made up, anyway, based on a single exit poll, with no way to confirm or deny it. And your baseless suspicion of recent Hispanic immigrants isn't too pretty, either.

That, and for all the $ having been poured in on both sides, the failure of the gay rights side to reach out to communities of color (to the best of my knowledge; there may have been some that I didn't know about).

Now, THIS is certainly true.

Partly due to valiant efforts of an activist who is both queer and of color... I can't remember her name... she's a former Reedie, it so happens, who graduated a few decades ahead of us... anyways.

Not sure who you mean - I don't know any Reedies IRL. But she sounds cool.

From:

How is the point valid?
The point is that the philosophy of giving everyone equal legal rights has been applied to increase legal rights of women and blacks, and the same philosophy applies here.

What's to be gained by this approach?
The hope is to encourage the support of people who now support women's and blacks' rights.

How could this sign be rephrased to make it not inane?
That's a difficult one... how about:
Equal in the eyes of the law:
[check] Caucasian men
[check] African-Americans
[check] women
[ ] LGBTQ

Yes, this still ignores the fact that these groups overlap, but there's something to be said for having a simple sign.

How do you feel about the comparison, often made, with the rights of a white and a black person (of opposite genders) to marry each other?

The numbers you've seen about blackfolk are practically made up, anyway, based on a single exit poll, with no way to confirm or deny it.
Ok, but you're conflating POC (what I said) and blackfolk (what apparently lots of people are saying and is apparently not a tenable assertion).
My statement was based on a discussion I heard on NPR. It seems this CNN poll (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1) is the poll they're all referring to, which you describe as "practically made up." Googling, most analysis (e.g. Daily Kos) notes that there just aren't enough black folks in California for them to swing the outcome, even if this poll is accurate. Which is not the same as saying there aren't enough POC. Of course, as I was trying to note earlier, there are lots of ways to slice the numbers; it seems like age and religious affiliation probably make more sense than race. Are you also going to accuse me of bias if I note that the poll below found more opposition to Prop 8 among those with a college education and those with higher incomes?
Here's (http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=860) a better poll; PPIC is quite a reputable organization in my book, more interested in truth than news or partisanship. See page 12 of the full report. They found 50% of whites, 61% of Hispanics, and 57% of Hispanics, blacks and Asians combined, voted yes on Prop 8; their sample sizes for blacks and Asians were too small to report the results separately.

And your baseless suspicion of recent Hispanic immigrants isn't too pretty, either.
A lot in this story isn't pretty. My "baseless" assumption is in fact, based on an awareness that the average immigrant is more religious than the average Californian, and personal experience with recent Asian immigrants (for them, religious means Buddhist), and the general awareness that immigrants are often coming from cultures where gayness is much more frowned on, and they often hold those views themselves at least for awhile. In Sacramento, some of the most actively anti-gay people are recent Russian immigrants (I lived in Sac for a few years) and the police have had to deal with clashes between the two. In fact, what I was trying to emphasize is that for some POC (not so much blacks, since not many of them are recent immigrants) the "POC are less supportive of gay rights" assertion may describe recent immigrants but might not describe as well people who've been here longer--i.e. it's more about where they're coming from recently, than about their race per se. I haven't seen any poll data reflecting immigrant status so I have no idea if the numbers bear up this hypothesis.
But thanks for assuming that I was only referring to Hispanic immigrants and had no basis for my assumption.

And even if it did (which no reputable source is claiming), what does that have to do with insipid signs like this one? "Oh, the POC ruined this vote for us, so we get to use them on our signs!"
I didn't mean the latter at all.
What does it have to do with these signs? Good question. Not as much as it has to do with this discussion--yes, I was making the point that there are those in communities of color, who aren't very supportive of queer rights, just as there are those in the queer community who aren't very supportive of racial equality. The street runs both ways.

From:

Now, THIS is certainly true.
Interesting that you're so confident of this... and wait, from a political strategy point of view, if POC didn't swing the election, as I thought you were asserting, why should the queer community have worked harder to reach out to them? As opposed to working hard to reach out to, say, white born-again Christians?
I'm just sayin'.

And, this assertion of mine was based on less information than my other assertion which you took issue with. For instance, as much as my housemates occasionally watch "Ugly Betty," I was unaware that several actors from it had done an anti-Prop. 8 spot (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid64555.asp) (in English and Spanish; scroll down to the YouTube insert). Maybe the efforts to reach out to the Hispanic vote, weren't as bad as I assumed. In contrast, some commentators say the efforts to reach out to the black vote, were in fact lacking. Maybe both of these are just the results of political calculations.

Sorry, that was Prop. 9 (http://superqueerpoet.multiply.com/reviews/item/91) in 2000.

From:

snoopypez.livejournal.com

oh, beautiful.

From:

sanguinity

Nice pics. I was wondering if you were there, but I wouldn't have had a bat's chance of recognizing you. We were so far back, we couldn't hear a thing. Couldn't get more than a glimpse of anything most of the time, either.

That sign irritated me, too.

From:

dr-monkeycat.livejournal.com

Excellent shots. You had great light today. The faces you captured were wonderful.

Off-topic, but I noticed your name on several pics (including the cover) in the latest Reed magazine. Nice work.

From:

Oh, so it finally came out! They never tell me these things, haha. Thanks. I'll have to go pick up a copy.

From:

frenchkriss.livejournal.com

goosebumps. the one above "aw" made me choke up a little. these are just beautiful molly

From:

I'm glad we ran into each other..and that you managed to get further in and actually hear what was going on. I'm still disappointed that it wasn't a very visible gathering today.

As always, these are fabulous. Are you batch processing these or are these straight from camera?

From:

Batch processing in Lightroom. Minimal changes, though, except for that one that was really underexposed.

I was disappointed too, but eventually I just decided that it wasn't a protest like in other cities but more of an opportunity for the community to rally together. For those of us who could actually hear (admittedly, not many) it was very energizing and we were reminded many times of the hard work we have to do rather than just come to these events. So while it wasn't what I wanted it to be, it was nice in its own way.

From:

I tried Lightroom once and got incredibly frustrated so I erased it before the trial period ended. I might have to give it another go soon.

I wish I had heard the speakers. I would have loved to hear Sam Adams speak.

Also? Thanks for the links to firefox's color management. Useful stuff! I still am baffled by the way that works!

From:

It looks like there's a recording up at Blogtown.

It is super baffling. I used to have this whole complicated process to make them look the same with or without color profiles turned on (at least on the same computer) but I couldn't duplicate it in Lightroom, so I just gave up and decided to have faith that browsers will move toward having them on by default (I think Firefox 3.1 will do this).

From:

uncacreamy.livejournal.com

A sister of perpetual indulgence!

I wish there was something similar here.. I can't afford to get to NYC.

From:

You're in Buffalo, right? If so, there was one there. I should have posted the list earlier, sorry!

From:

uncacreamy.livejournal.com

Durnit!!!! Well, I'll keep an eye out for more!

From:

sabotabby

These are great—you have an awesome knack for capturing the emotion on people's faces.

From:

jesuisunautre.livejournal.com

I looked at these a few hours ago, and I can't get the first one out of my head. It reminds me of that photo from an ERA demonstration decades ago, where the girl is holding the placard that says, "Girls are strong."

This one:
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p198/jessicamorgan1234/GirlsAreStrong.jpg

Both are really moving images. Good job (as always).

From:

dnivie.livejournal.com

You should do this for a living.

From: